Having seen the draft bills for the Auckland reconstruction (I'm quoted by proxy in a Greens release this morning about the secondment of existing councils' staff to the Auckland Transitional Agency), I can safely say that no matter how much of a "jobs for the boys" look the MFAT appointment appears to be it's nothing against what will be done for the ATA.

So just a quick note for Sean Plunket: sometimes governments massage financial numbers to make their ideas look better, and in this case, it seems the numbers haven't been so much massaged as given a full-service rogering. And a corresponding note for Sean's interview subject, David Shearer: sometimes it's easier to just say "creative accounting" or "raiding the piggy bank" than to explain the details.

Quick note for Russell: Just because you've made up your mind doesn't mean Plunket should throw all scepticism out the window.

And David should fucking explain the details, otherwise why shouldn't I think he's just making shit up?

But some of the rest ... hovering over a reporter editing a story

Oh FFS... Let's see, someone whose contract was not renewed for undisclosed reasons claims she was "rather uncomfortable" because Lee was standing behind her? What looks rather bad here is that it looks like another round of TVNZ/Three beating up the opposition because actual reporting is just too damn hard.

I thought it was rather revealing when Sean Plonker and Geoff Robinson were wrapping up Morning Report this morning, around a discussion of twitter and tweeting; Geoff R. saying that you could post 146 words, then referring to himself, Plonker and Lynne Freeman as "three dinosaurs". You said it, mate!

But, however we might not enjoy being lectured by Rankin in this context, it would be perilous to say that it should preclude her from the post. There are much better arguments than that -- most notably that Rankin and her trust set themselves against all the genuine child welfare agencies in the country by advocating strongly for the "right" to hit your children. It is genuinely difficult to see how she could work effectively with organisations like Barnado's given her comments about them in the past.

Russell, I appreciate and fully agree this carefully worded explanation of her unsuitability. Separately, I do wonder if National won't benefit somewhat from her appointment ~ with a different political cohort who see her as a real moderate in a sea of femo-nazis.

Yeah, and Helen Clark should have had a sit down with Ian Wishart and explained how wrong all his little conspiracy theories are... because she's a fraking moron who can't smell a set up.

For goodness sake Craig, it was relevant and she's answerable both as an MP and as someone whose company receives a million dollars a year of public money -- which is alleged to have been questionably used. She made an appointment to be interviewed -- and without explanation cancelled it.

Like I said, I have some sympathy with her, and the mere fact that her company makes an NZOA-funded programme is no big deal. But, even given the 3 vs One dimension, there were entirely reasonable questions she could and should have answered.

Harking back to waaaaaay up thread - thanks for the invitations to Blenheim and Warkworth, but I think I'll have to stay in Mt Albert. I've never had the opportunity to lie down in front of a bulldozer before...

The Minister can appoint anyone they wish, achieve any composition they desire, and there's not even a requirement for a token lay person or iwi rep.

Let's guess - what former Act MPs or friends of the right have a bit of spare time and no expertise in governance transition planning? What about Owen McShane now he's got his road wish, that man from the Newmarket Business Assn who is always on TV when Hide-friendly comments are required, and Muriel Newman for gender balance and suggestions on how the citizens of Auckland can live on the smell of an oily rag from traffic congestion. And there's always Don Brash or Michelle Boag.

Joshua, not looking like they're online yet. Gotta love that engagement of the democratic process, when legislation affecting the home city of 1/3 of the population isn't even available for consideration before it gets debated.

Just in case anyone missed it, from the Herald story about the supercity transition board, another crucial deviation from the carefully recommended transition process:

One of the first jobs for the agency will be appointing a chief executive, but it will also appoint an interim chief executive for the Auckland Council up to the middle of 2012.

The interim chief executive has been given wide powers before he or she is politically accountable to the Auckland Council. These include the ability to hand-pick his or her executive team, enter into contracts and leases and other agreements "to enable the council to operate efficiently and effectively" from November 2010.

The royal commission recommended the transition agency should have an independent chairman and an interim chief executive until the Auckland Council was in a position to appoint a full-time chief executive.

The only people the chief executive will be accountable to are the members of the transition agency, who in turn, will report to Mr Hide. The agency must obtain the approval of Mr Hide and Finance Minister Bill English for spending.

So Hide has direct control of what is done in the transition, constrained only by English.

It's a trifecta of neutralising opposition to Waterview and any similar local matters - no RMA leverage, no Council leverage, no national political leverage. Gone. Capping rates rises and removing social wellbeing from the Local Government Act yet to come.

Anyone who thinks this won't be repeated around the country is kidding themselves. National voters should pay close attention to what they have wrought and start asking some questions about why Act is getting so much for their tiny share of the vote, and whether this is really the kind of New Zealand they want for themselves and their families.

Craig, I saw the interview on Campbell Live. An employee of Lee's gave an eye-witness account of Lee behaving in a certain manner. If Lee did what the employee said she did, then there has to be a serious question about whether Lee acted appropriately.

All Lee had to do was front up and refute the allegations. She didn't.

We are not talking about someone making fantasy claims based on what he/she read on the internet or the bible. This is an (alleged) eye-witness account. So the Wishart analogy isn't appropriate.

Lee ought to know how the media game works. If she had fronted up (even if it was simply to deny the employee's account) she could have buried the story before it was aired.

There may still be an innocent explanation for what happened. But Lee has to take some of the blame for the way the story panned out.

Hilary, that post by Catherine Delahunty is plain silly. Michael Barnett has long been the Chair of the EEO Trust - who improve the prospects of women in the workplace. There's a difference between expertise and membership of a community, and testicles do not denote total ignorance about improving the wellbeing of women.

Frankly, I'd rather see that kind of concern directed at Rankin's appointment - or better still, some of the things it's a smokescreen for, like gutting our foreign poverty reduction investment that prioritises women in the Pacific.

hrowing this into urgency is highly undemocratic. The governing arrangements for 1/3 of NZ's population should have the full review of Parliament, our representatives.

George: I really don't like urgency, because the genuine need for it is extraordinarily rare. But a coup d'etat? Oh, I'm going to call theatre supreme on that, because nobody else is going to bother. Why doesn't Norman just drop the f-bomb and save some time?

All Lee had to do was front up and refute the allegations. She didn't.

I hope Lee knows the difference between refute and deny, Scotty. And if you know anything about the 'media game', then you might have heard the idea that the worse thing to do with false allegations is to give them the oxygen of your attention. Which is why the Wishart analogy is perfectly appropriate: Clark has consistently said that she would not dignify any of the man's allegations with a nano-second of her time. And good on her.